Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

Posting rules

Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title.Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).

No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").

No recent sources. Any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) with a publication date more recent than two months are not allowed.

No submissions regarding or related to the following

Recent politics/politicians

Police misconduct

Inflammatory submissions relating to religion/race/gender

No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.

Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:

Titles must begin with "TIL ..."

Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").

Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.

"TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").

Frequent TILs Repost List

As of January 2018

This list was compiled from /r/todayilearned community suggestions by its members. If your TIL is found on this list, it will be removed. The titles have been abridged for the sake of brevity, however the context remains the same. This list is subject to change. The purpose is to keep content fresh on /r/todayilearned as requested by its members. If you are interested in reading about the TILs on this list use the search box feature and enter the keywords to pull up past TILs.

never seen a guy fall from grace so quickly... he got the loudest ovation while hoisting the stanley cup in 2011, rejected the invitation to the white house, got eliminated in the first round of the playoffs in 2012, he then went on to abandon his team for the 2012-2013 season, only to have his contract traded to the new york islanders so they could meet the salary cap floor. he now lives in obscurity somewhere in colorado. sad but true.

And, at least where the "founding father's vision" is concerned, he doesn't read history either.

Hamilton arguing for expansionism (Federalist #10)

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former [republics] than in the latter [democracies]. ... Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage."

Madison arguing for expanded infrastructure (Federalist #14):

"Let it be remarked, in the third place, that the intercourse throughout the Union will be facilitated by new improvements. Roads will everywhere be shortened, and kept in better order; accommodations for travelers will be multiplied and meliorated; an interior navigation on our eastern side will be opened throughout, or nearly throughout, the whole extent of the thirteen States. The communication between the Western and Atlantic districts, and between different parts of each, will be rendered more and more easy by those numerous canals with which the beneficence of nature has intersected our country, and which art finds it so little difficult to connect and complete."

Elizabeth Warren: "You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did."

Yeah, no kidding. NOBODY IS AGAINST GOVERNMENT DOING ANY OF THAT, Ms. Strawman tipper. That's what government is for. Not financing solar power companies and keeping people from building a house on their property.

I disagree on the financing Solar Power companies, to be upfront I believe that Socialism in its current form in the world is good. I believe it is the governments responsibility to do what is best for the country for Independence and the environment. Solar power allows for a cleaner environment and helps a country become less depended on foreign oil and uranium. The issue as to why private industry won't fund it right now because it is too expensive, that is why the government needs to step in to help that process along.

Is that the common reaction you're used to? That is misinformed. Usually when people say that government has gotten too large in conversations I am part of they are referring to Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, WIC/food stamps, as well as advocating the reduction of gun control and making marriage equality constitutionally illegal.

I always find it funny how those last two seem to go together hand in hand in the conventional conservative rhetoric I commonly encounter in my own life.

On reddit, yes, this is a very common reaction. Well, the James Madison part was more a shot at the guy who I responded to in this case, but I think that was probably obvious....

Usually when people say that government has gotten too large in conversations I am part of they are referring to Social Security, Medicare, Welfare, WIC/food stamps, as well as advocating the reduction of gun control and making marriage equality constitutionally illegal.

I'm not sure about the last part. I mean, while many people who want to drastically limit the government DO oppose gay marriage, they don't use "the government is too large" as their reasoning for it.

I always find it funny how those last two seem to go together hand in hand in the conventional conservative rhetoric I commonly encounter in my own life.

I think it is less conventional than you think. While there are certainly TONS of conservatives that feel this way, there are also TONS that don't. With it is certainly anecdotal evidence, out of the dozens of conservatives I talk to on a regular basis, I can't think of one off the top of my head that would vote in support of a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Now, most of these conservatives that I know are younger and college educated, so I'm sure that plays a role in it, but they still exist.

As a quick aside, isn't the entire concept of many marriage based rights discriminatory? I mean, basically, the government is giving financial incentives for conforming to what THEY consider as "good" or "right". Shouldn't the government just stay the hell out of our relationships altogether as opposed to trying to incentivize relationship choices that they happen to favor? Doesn't that discriminate against people who make PERSONAL PRIVATE relationship choices that the government deems as less valuable or important?

On reddit, yes, this is a very common reaction. Well, the James Madison part was more a shot at the guy who I responded to in this case, but I think that was probably obvious....

Don't worry, it was lol. But it is depressing to hear that that is a common reaction. In our debate circles here we long ago stopped using infrastructure as a justification for the size of current federal budgets, I always assumed the majority of the denizens of Reddit were equally intelligent in their arguments.

I'm not sure about the last part. I mean, while many people who want to drastically limit the government DO oppose gay marriage, they don't use "the government is too large" as their reasoning for it.

That's why I find it funny that in my experience those two points of view usually come together. In one example they government is too big, in the next, even though in principle it is the exact same thing, it somehow is magically transformed into the government "doing what's right." Again this is just my experience but it is completely contradictory yet utterly acceptable within their scope of political philosophy.

I feel like I should also include that their stated reasoning is, "Gay marriage isn't right in the eyes of God and no man should be able to say otherwise, but this damn government is getting so big they think they have the right to do just that instead of doing their job and saying it's not."

Where I live even the young Republicans are vehemently against civil marriage equality, in some cases more passionately than older members of the GOP which I find a bit alarming. I imagine this country will always be divided on the financial obligations and practices of the federal government but I don't see us moving forward at all unless civil liberties are handled and supported equally at all levels of government on both sides of the aisle. Government is a function of civil administration who's policies should not be informed by religious mandate or factious moral interpretation.

In answer to your aside I agree that all financial benefits granted to those in civil marriage are discriminatory. I feel like it all comes down to the filing status on the 1040 at the end of the day and if MFJ didn't give you any more benefit than Single, there wouldn't be any real political opposition to civil marriage equality.

I feel like the additional concerns such as being allowed to be present in a restricted care area of a hospital or the rights of property transference would then seem politically trivial and there would be no incentive for states to withhold the status of civil marriage and the conference of these rights at that point other than out of pure spite.

Of course there would still be protest and backlash because many people in this country simply do not understand the difference between a religious marriage ceremony and a civil marriage arrangement. They're too willfully ignorant to accept that there is a difference and that the actualization of one would not actually threaten or compromise the other in any way but what can you do?

Bullshit. The Articles of Confederation didn't even grant Congress the power to levy taxes. Saying the Union should be stronger than the Articles of Confederation is in no way, shape, or form equivalent to arguing for the extravagance of government we have today.

Also, he's arguing for a large republic in "number of citizens and extent of territory" because the diversity of viewpoints will make its deliberations more advantageous, not for an ever expansive state.

the diversity of viewpoints will make its deliberations more advantageous

Actually, they were quite explicit that the diversity of opinions was to prevent an "unjust" majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. When you take into account that the "minority" is the white, land-owning enfranchised class, then it becomes clear that the anti-majoritarian leanings of the Founding Fathers are also specifically anti-democratic.

For example, Federalist 51:

"The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

The "rights of the minority" are those of the white, land-owning, voting class.

Publius (Hamilton or Madison) continues:

"There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable."

That is, a large society with many interests will prevent the laboring majority from combining their efforts to take power from the wealthy minority.

The Constitution, just like any other piece of text ever written in human history, should be read within the context of the time period it's been written in. Unfortunately in modern US politics, the we have completely lost sight of this context much in the same way that we've lost sight of the context surrounding Biblical text. The US Constitution instead has ceased being a well-constructed set of guidelines on this nation's governance and has turned into an untouchable, infallible, almost-divine text that is quoted in absolutes. It's really unfortunate, and runs counter to the spirit in which it was prepared.

Citing Madison and Hamilton as evidence that the "founding fathers" wanted a strong Federal government is kind of silly. The fact of the matter is that there wasn't one unified vision for what America should be. Some wanted a strong federal government, some wanted almost completely separate states. What we have now is a compromise between those ideas, but he's not incorrect in stating that the current administration is going in a completely different direction than the Constitution lays out.

What he doesn't realize is that the government stopped listening to the Constitution when FDR was president (or even arguably Lincoln), and every president since has followed his example of not reading their job description.

Some wanted a strong federal government, some wanted almost completely separate states

Citing Madison and Hamilton is not silly. We have an economic system set up by Hamilton, and a political system largely engineered by Madison. The Jeffersonian/democratic/decentralized/agrarian camp lost to the urban financial interest.

Furthermore, a strong central government was the primary motivation for the Constitution, as the weakness of the central government was the primary reason why the Founders didn't like the Articles of Confederation. Specifically, they wanted a strong central government that could: a) levy taxes, b) use force to stabilize real estate prices on the western frontier, c) enforce contract, as states under the Articles could cancel onerous debt, and d) issue gold currency, as paper currency was a popular method for regulating wealth in the states under the Articles.

As the Founders angled to create a stronger central government, the Shays Rebellion was used as a a major talking point. After the Constitution was put in place, Hamilton went about issuing new taxes: he set up the first central bank, and proposed the Whiskey Tax. As there was no income tax, the agrarian constituency rightly perceived that taxing consumption was an easy way to finance wealth. So the farmers rebelled, and there was the Whiskey Rebellion.

And then, George Washington made use of the Second Amendment, took command of a federalized militia larger than anything he ever commanded during the Revolutionary War, and bore down on the tax protesters. The farmers paid, and that's what we have America for. The Second Amendment was more for suppressing insurrection than fighting tyranny: that much was clear to people at the time.

George Washington ... larger than anything he ever commanded during the Civil War

Might want to fix that there.

The Second Amendment was more for suppressing insurrection than fighting tyranny

It was so the people never had to live in fear from their government or other governments, or factions. The possibility of rasing a US militia at a needed time without having to fund munitions was the point. The people had the power.

I am glad your get to define the terms of acceptable conversation. I was talking about the success against the British military.

On the next two points. The success and failure of the militia can be shown as the direct result of of one simple fact "Rules of engagement". We see the militia show up again in the civil war. The early days of the war were the result of a rapidly brought together military structure. And guess what! We tried fighting like the British again, and it failed again.

Even if a militia happened to be required to be called up for some reason, the simple presence of civilian owned munitions prevents a 'tyrant' from occupation by force. For a modern example look how well it worked in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jefferson didn't leave much political writing, but his associate John Taylor did. John Taylor railed against aristocracy, debt, and the urban financial interest generally. He was a democrat and distrusted the republican system.

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL."

You're reading way too into that statement. Bush is just as much, if not more, of a war criminal. Cluster bombs, drone strikes on American citizens, and indefinite detention are just a few things to happen under both presidents.

I have a strong suspicion that if G.W.B was the sitting POTUS or any other Conservative (read: Caucasian)...Mr. Thomas would not have issue with visiting the White House. It amazes me that as soon as President Obama took office, Government suddenly became this giant out of control monster. When in reality, most of the policies that people like Mr. Thomas disagree with where put into place by the prior administration. Yes, I am playing the race card because in this case and many others regarding our current POTUS, it simply is a thinly veiled attempt to hide their true outrage...the POTUS is not White. Where was the Tea Party during the last administration? Why where they not outraged about the blatant lies fed to the American Public about WMDs in Iraq, the 13 "Benghazi's" that happened during those terms, the illegal war, the thousands of lives lost, the pre 9/11 reports, the fact that the President got "Divine" messages, Patriot Act anyone??? I didn't and don't hear them crying foul about our former POTUS. It's fucking sickening!! These people can cry that they aren't racist blah blah blah...but the facts are that this POTUS did not make the government this out of control monster...in fact he has performed more like a Moderate Conservative than a Leftist Liberal. I'd have a lot more respect for those who would simply say what their real issue is with the POTUS (read: being Black) than trying to congure up these make believe issues they hide behind...be a fucking man! I don't agree with some things that our current POTUS has and hasn't done, but I base my opinion on FACTS not bullshit fed to me by FNC or Rush/Beck (read: Witch Hunters). If these outlets would come out and say "I don't like President Obama because he is Black!", I could at least respect the fact that they are being honest to themselves and voicing their opinion..albeit ignorant opinions, they are their truths. But the current state of Conservative pundits is no better than the Salem Witch Trials...damned if you are, damned if you aren't a Witch. It's just so sad and juvenile. Sorry for the rant, but i'm so tired of these types of stories...I don't need a retort etc...save your breathe...your argument based on "make believe" will not impress me.

He has 3 children who all have names that start with, K.
Some people drew conclusions on that.
He personally would like to have a meal with Glenn Beck. I'd like to see his book shelf. ( I do this for everyone I meet ).
What's on their book shelf?

Let's be fair, Thomas never voiced his political beliefs before that incident, so it's impossible to know what he thought about the government before 2012.

Before he said this, Tim Thomas was actually being given a lot of hero treatment by hockey fans. Partially for his accomplishments, but especially for his rags-to-riches life story and his humble, nice-guy persona.

Of course, after Thomas said this, he was immediately vilified and basically disowned by hockey fans everywhere. Even more so once he announced he'd be skipping the last year of his contract to go live alone in the woods in Colorado with his family.

My issue is with your first point. He didn't have a problem with the last president or any current government abuses carried on by republicans. All the sudden, Obama takes the office and he follows Glen Beck into a fight for his freedom. This has nothing to do with actually philosophical beliefs (if it did you would hear about a lot more than Obama), this is just partisan bullshit from someone who has been manipulated.

Like I stated, I don't agree with many things this POTUS has and hasn't done. I'm not an "Obama worshipper" and there are many flaws in his presidency just like others. I'd like to see an example of a POTUS who fulfilled all of his 100 days promises....if you can show me this I would be very surprised. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but I don't know of any cases...please enlighten me. Also, many of those changes to policies need Congressional approval, as with many policy changes and with a Congress that chooses to fillibuster every policy brought to it, makes it hard to get shit done...just saying...so it isn't just the POTUS making those things happen alone.

What about the federal government demanding that every public school abandon due process, what about the seizing of press records, using the IRS to target conservative groups, killing American citizens ON American soil with drones... Bush did not do any of this and he was demonized.

Well, he is right about at least one thing: despite waging two wars while reducing taxes at the same time and signing TARP into action, government spending didn't become a concern until the sitting party changed colors. It's to be expected, of course, but it's still kinda fucked up.

This was a huge deal on NHL. He kept saying that's his personal life and it has nothing to do with hockey. Then they had a picture of him with the Tea Party logo on his mask. That's bringing it into hockey, if you ask me.

Besides, you won the Cup as a team, so take one for the team and go to the fucking White House like every other US team has done.

It's true, the Founding Father's true vision was centered around a self righteous asshole wearing 35 pounds of plastic and padding stopping frozen discs of rubber only to make more money than any of them could have fathomed.

Makes statements like: I've seen more needles in baseball than a heroin addict. Get's called before Congress and looks at the ground and mumbles: I really haven't seen anything, I'm all talk.
Heard him on a radio show trashing unions, they remind him that he was in the major league players union and he states that this one particular union is actually much needed and a good thing. Etc...

It's not exactly a secret he identifies with the Tea Party and that group is by and large full of racist pricks. So uh, no, chances are if Obama were white he would have had tea and crumpets with the rest of his team.

The reason most people I know were upset with his choice had nothing to do with politics, it was that he took a day that was supposed to be about his team and their accomplishments and made it all about himself and the statement he wanted to make. He wasn't some fourth liner, he won the Conn Smythe that year (playoff mvp) so you better believe this was going to overshadow the trip.

It would have been incredibly easy to make a short note that he was unable to attend and then a few days later, after his team was recognized, addressed his reasons for not going.

Not really a big deal, it's not mandatory for any player of a championship team to go to the white house, if they dont wish to. Media blew it way out of proportion like they do with everything because it was a slow news week.

This just in: hockey player doesnt go to the white house, more on this breaking story as it developes!

As a huge Bruins fan, I took issue with Thomas' decision because I believe he should have put his political views aside and gone to the White House to represent his team, his fans, and the city of Boston regardless of his political views. He was not invited to the White House for political reasons yet he made it political. Outstanding athlete but he's let me down in a lot of ways off the ice.

Does Thomas have a PhD in political philosophy or a JD I am unaware of? No? He's just an overpaid jock who has a "Bachelor's degree" from a Division 1 university? (His wikipedia page lists his athletic accomplishments in college and his 2.7 GPA, but not his major). Remind me why I should care about his political beliefs?

Because he is a HARDCORE republican right wing. He did not visit the white house because Barack Hussein Obama was there, not because it was something about the constitution.

What he is implying if you follow him is that he believes the founding fathers were Christians with Christian ideals, meaning no gays, no lesbians. He thinks the liberal agenda that the white house is publicly advocating is against the constitution.

He supports everything that George Bush did in his presidency and everything the far right Republican party represents.

Tim Thomas had every right to make the comments that he did,but the whole point of visiting the white house is to be with your teammates who may enjoy the Presidents recognition of your championship.Him skipping on that occasion seemed like a slap in the face to his teammates.He could've just gone for the sake of being there with the brothers you helped win your championship with.

That's not what I have an issue with. I don't agree with his politics but that's fine. I just think it was a douche-move to bail on his team and his fans like that. When you get invited to the White House to celebrate your team's accomplishment you go regardless of how you feel towards the POTUS.

WHAT?!? There's no way... oh... you're Canadian, never mind. Canadians know hockey. Although the Montreal Canadians are and have always been a bunch of floppers who act towards the refs much like a spoiled child.

But even then that is a misnomer, so even if you think that the government to GDP levels are returning to historical average it doesn't mean the government isn't too big or overbearing. We have so many regulations now that it is strangling small businesses.

My father for example is a CFA. All he deals with are small timers (1-5 million in assets), and yet he is required to go through tests and certifications as if he is dealing with billions of dollars for a large bank. He is self employed; working for himself, and every year he has to pass more and more tests. It is getting to the point where he is going to be retiring early as the hassle isn't worth it anymore.

This process of increasing complexity is occurring in all sectors of the economy.

Now the IRS will be asking you about your healthcare status, and you don't think that that isn't an increase in government power and oversight into the lives of individual Americans... most of whom just want to pay taxes and be left alone?

I just want to pay my taxes and be left alone, so I can't for the life of me understand why the IRS would be asking me tax related questions.

First they asked if I were married, and I said nothing. Then they questioned my dependant status, and I turned away. When they came for my any other taxable interest, I feigned acquiescence, but when they asked if I had participated in a health care plan, it was too late :(

"Whatever your political views are, admire the huge balls it takes to stand up the POTUS!"

Actually, it takes being a huge intellectual coward to pretend his complaint ("out of control size of the federal government") has anything to do with only one or only the current President & this country's packed to the gills with other like-minded cowards.

I don't follow NHL all that closely. I don't have cable and I go to youth hockey games or watch my local AHL team. I watch playoff/stanley cup games at bars or restaurants, and I was wondering why Thomas wasn't in the net lately. Went to wikipedia and found out this odd fact. I figured it was an appropriate TIL, and I might hear some stories from you all.

Now I hear he's living in a bomb shelter-type place in Colorado and posting oddball political/slightly racist stuff on his Facebook page. Weird. And honestly, I think he should've just sucked it up and gone to The White House as part of the team.